Pollution caused by swine wastewater is a growing concern in many countries. In the developing countries, swine wastewater is not properly collected and treated, the wastewater from swine farm pollutes the ecosystem. Especially for small swine farms, they could not afford to have wastewater treatment system. Therefore, farmers need cheap, sustainable technology for future mixed farming. Vermifiltration by earthworm has been introduced to be an answer for enhancing wastewater treatment. Vermiwash is the liquid gathered from vermicomposting that has high microbial activities and nutrients. This study was carried out on a small pilot scale to investigate swine wastewater treatment efficiency of vermifiltration system with and without vermiwash and compared with the geofiltration system. Vermiwash was incubated in vermifiltration and geofiltration systems for 1 week before the treatment. The result showed improved efficiency of vermifiltration incubated with vermiwash in swine wastewater treatment for biological nt (47.65, 81.61 and 31.79%, respectively) compared with geofilter treatment. In addition, bioavailability of Cu in soil in form of exchangeable Cu was decreased by increasing the bound to organic matter fraction. Transformation of Cu during vermifiltration happened and alleviated the mobility and availability of Cu. Copper in exchangeable form can change into non-toxic form. Therefore, vermifiltration process incubated with vermiwash could reduce the dispersion of copper in swine waste. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/brusatol.html In conclusion, vermiwash could enhance performance of vermifiltration for swine farm wastewater treatment. The available fraction of copper in vermicompost produced from vermifiltration decreased. Therefore, the farmer could produce vermicompost as the biofertilizer for agricultural production. Using vermifiltration for wastewater treatment in small swine farm could be the eco-solution for nutrient recovery, water resource recycles and minimize pollution.The aim of this study is to determine whether severe COVID-19 patients harbour a higher risk of ICU-acquired pneumonia.
This retrospective multicentre cohort study comprised all consecutive patients admitted to seven ICUs for severe COVID-19 pneumonia during the first COVID-19 surge in France. Inclusion criteria were laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation for 48h or more. Control groups were two historical cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU for bacterial or non-SARS-CoV-2 viral pneumonia. The outcome of interest was the development of ICU-acquired pneumonia. The determinants of ICU-acquired pneumonia were investigated in a multivariate competing risk analysis.
One hundred and seventy-six patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to the ICU between March 1st and 30th June of 2020 were included into the study. Historical control groups comprised 435 patients with bacterial pneumonia and 48 ones with viral pneumonia. ICU-acquired pneumonia occurred in 52% of COVID-19 patients, whereas in 26% and 23% of patients with bacterial or viral pneumonia, respectively (p?&lt;?0.001). Times from initiation of mechanical ventilation to ICU-acquired pneumonia were similar across the three groups. In multivariate analysis, the risk of ICU-acquired pneumonia remained independently associated with underlying COVID-19 (SHR?=?2.18; 95 CI 1.2-3.98, p?=?0.011).
COVID-19 appears an independent risk factor of ICU-acquired pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia. Whether this is driven by immunomodulatory properties by the SARS-CoV-2 or this is related to particular processes of care remains to be investigated.
COVID-19 appears an independent risk factor of ICU-acquired pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia. Whether this is driven by immunomodulatory properties by the SARS-CoV-2 or this is related to particular processes of care remains to be investigated.To evaluate the clinical value of the chest CT scan compared to the reference standard real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in COVID-19 patients.
From March 29th to April 15th of 2020, a total of 240 patients with respiratory distress underwent both a low-dose chest CT scan and RT-PCR tests. The performance of chest CT in diagnosing COVID-19 was assessed with reference to the RT-PCR result. Two board-certified radiologists (mean 24years of experience chest CT), blinded for the RT-PCR result, reviewed all scans and decided positive or negative chest CT findings by consensus.
Out of 240 patients, 60% (144/240) had positive RT-PCR results and 89% (213/240) had a positive chest CT scans. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of chest CT in suggesting COVID-19 were 100% (95% CI 97-100%, 144/240), 28% (95% CI 19-38%, 27/240), 68% (95% CI 65-70%) and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the chest CT suggesting COVID-19 was 71% (95% CI 65-77%). Thirty-three patients with positive chest CT scan and negative RT-PCR test at baseline underwent repeat RT-PCR assay. In this subgroup, 21.2% (7/33) cases became RT-PCR positive.
Chest CT imaging has high sensitivity and high NPV for diagnosing COVID-19 and can be considered as an alternative primary screening tool for COVID-19 in epidemic areas. In addition, a negative RT-PCR test, but positive CT findings can still be suggestive of COVID-19 infection.
Chest CT imaging has high sensitivity and high NPV for diagnosing COVID-19 and can be considered as an alternative primary screening tool for COVID-19 in epidemic areas. In addition, a negative RT-PCR test, but positive CT findings can still be suggestive of COVID-19 infection.Verapamil-sensitive atrial tachycardia originating from the atrioventricular node vicinity (AVN-AT) can be eliminated with radiofrequency energy (RF) deliveries targeting either the entrance or exit of its reentry circuit. However, the outcome of these different approaches has not been clarified well. Thus, we compared the catheter ablation outcome targeting the entrance of reentry circuit, identified by the entrainment method (Ent-Group; 21 patients) with that targeting the earliest atrial activation site (EAAS) during AT (Exit-Group; 16 patients). There was no significant difference in the tachycardia cycle length (441.4?±?87.4 vs. 392.8?±?64.8 ms, p?=?0.0704) or distance from the His bundle (HB) site to the EAAS (6.5?±?2.0 vs. 7.6?±?1.8 mm, p?=?0.0822) between the Ent- and Exit-Groups. However, distance from the successful ablation site to the HB site in the Ent-Group was significantly longer than that in the Exit-Group (13.4?±?3.1 vs. 7.6?±?1.8 mm, p? less then ?0.0001), resulting in more frequent transient atrioventricular block episodes in the Exit-Group than Ent-Group (31.